Planar1.4
Member
I have been using the Contax UV on my 90 and 35 for years.
I just put a Contax P(rotective) one on my new 45.
I do like the way they match.
anyone else use these- like or dislike them?
Like the UV over the P or 1A?
Also wondering if anyone has put a filter to protect the 21 (still in box!- so wondering if I should filter before I use?!)
I just put a Contax P(rotective) one on my new 45.
I do like the way they match.
anyone else use these- like or dislike them?
Like the UV over the P or 1A?
Also wondering if anyone has put a filter to protect the 21 (still in box!- so wondering if I should filter before I use?!)
S
Socke
Guest
When a friend heard what my B+W filters cost he recommended protective filters for the filters 
The black slim F-Pro filters look a bit weird on my silver lenses but since I allways have hoods on the filters it is not so obvious.
Two of my hoods have dents to show what they are good for besides reducing flare.
Edit:
I forgot to mention I mostly use 1A filters
The black slim F-Pro filters look a bit weird on my silver lenses but since I allways have hoods on the filters it is not so obvious.
Two of my hoods have dents to show what they are good for besides reducing flare.
Edit:
I forgot to mention I mostly use 1A filters
Planar1.4
Member
I use B+W on all my SLR Zeiss lenses- except the 60 macro, and love them- but you are right they are spendy. I guess that was part of my question- to use B+W or Contax- and what glass was used in Contax filters- they don't have T* on them, so assume they are not Multi-Coated?
Hard to find good information on the filters anymore.
Hard to find good information on the filters anymore.
furcafe
Veteran
My understanding is that the Contax filters are multi-coated, just not T* (which is a Carl Zeiss trademarked process--remember Kyocera & Zeiss are separate companies). Whether they are as "good" as B+W's MRC coating, I have no idea, but they seem to work fine for me.
Planar1.4 said:
furcafe
Veteran
Why would anyone put a protective *&* a UV filter on a lens? Wouldn't the UV alone cover both bases?
Planar1.4 said:
jaap
Jaap
I seldom use filters, you introduce another air-glas-air surface without the t* coating.
As a protection it doesn,t make sense imho. If the filter breaks the splinter will demage the front element. As a protection I count more on a good hood.
As a protection it doesn,t make sense imho. If the filter breaks the splinter will demage the front element. As a protection I count more on a good hood.
S
Socke
Guest
It took me some time to get the salt from the UV filter I had on my lens:
jaap
Jaap
In that case you better use it yeah. Or a plastic bag!
Planar1.4
Member
Hmm- that is one way to read that- my intention was "do people prefer one of them above the other?" The P over the B&W is funny issue- but I wouldn't do it either.furcafe said:
Planar1.4
Member
If Kyocera had the license to make T* coated optics already, why would they not have been able to make the filters?furcafe said:
Anyway- consensus is they are coated but not T*?
furcafe
Veteran
I'm not sure Kyocera has such a license. I thought Carl Zeiss actually owned & operated the factory in Japan where lenses for Contax cameras are/were made (I could be wrong about that). Besides, even if Kyocera has/had the license to use the coating for lenses, it wouldn't necessarily apply to filters. Come to think of it, I've never seen anybody, even Zeiss, make filters w/the T* coating. So, yes, they're multi-coated, just not using the "T*" technology.
Planar1.4 said:
steve garza
Well-known
UV for 21mm
UV for 21mm
I just picked up my 21 mm and have shot 3 rolls. The pictures are gorgeous but I like taking my camera hiking and to other unkind area. I've ordered a B+W UV (Multi coated) for it. I use them on my 28,45 and 90mm lenses. Paid $32.95 from Adorama. Well worth the price. Picked up the smaller filters (and yellow and red filters) from Samy's (in-store) for about $20.00 each (all B+W). I'm not sure if the filters degrade the image in any way. They look great to me. They increase contrast and cut haze which is great for outdoor shots.I don't see why people find them so expensive. I think it's a great way to protect the lens and improve the image.
UV for 21mm
Planar1.4 said:
I just picked up my 21 mm and have shot 3 rolls. The pictures are gorgeous but I like taking my camera hiking and to other unkind area. I've ordered a B+W UV (Multi coated) for it. I use them on my 28,45 and 90mm lenses. Paid $32.95 from Adorama. Well worth the price. Picked up the smaller filters (and yellow and red filters) from Samy's (in-store) for about $20.00 each (all B+W). I'm not sure if the filters degrade the image in any way. They look great to me. They increase contrast and cut haze which is great for outdoor shots.I don't see why people find them so expensive. I think it's a great way to protect the lens and improve the image.
Planar1.4
Member
steve garza said:
For the 21mm- do you think the B+W SLIM is in order?
Seems to qualify as a pretty wide angle lens and might benefit from what the SLIM has to offer.
Planar1.4
Member
I am guessing that the Contax one that is made specifically for the 21mm would not interfere either- and they do state that they are multicoated...
Price is very similar to a normal MC B+W, but Contax is less than the MC-SLIM
Price is very similar to a normal MC B+W, but Contax is less than the MC-SLIM
John
Well-known
I am using B&W and the Contax uv filters. Mostly for protection and cleanability. I also have the hoods on and the slip on caps for each lens.
With any luck my lenses will be pristine years from now. I understand the occasional shot could show flare or other symptoms, but it is not as big a deal as gouging my lens or leaving cleaning marks.
With any luck my lenses will be pristine years from now. I understand the occasional shot could show flare or other symptoms, but it is not as big a deal as gouging my lens or leaving cleaning marks.
daniel~
Established
I use UV filters on all of my Zeiss lenses to keep them from dust/spash/scratch.
Contax P for G lenses (because that's the way they were sold); B+W UV for the SLR lenses.
When shooting in the street I walk around with the lens "uncapped", no matter it's on my neck or in the bag, so I prefer it equiped with a UV and a hood. I'm often impressed with the dust/water mark on the UV when I occasionally check it...
However, for most of my good old compact cameras I don't use any UV filters or hood. Several of them have ASA setting inside the filter ring, a filter will make it incovenient for exposure compensation through changing the ASA. As for hood it would block part of the the viewfinder and adds to the bulk.
Contax P for G lenses (because that's the way they were sold); B+W UV for the SLR lenses.
When shooting in the street I walk around with the lens "uncapped", no matter it's on my neck or in the bag, so I prefer it equiped with a UV and a hood. I'm often impressed with the dust/water mark on the UV when I occasionally check it...
However, for most of my good old compact cameras I don't use any UV filters or hood. Several of them have ASA setting inside the filter ring, a filter will make it incovenient for exposure compensation through changing the ASA. As for hood it would block part of the the viewfinder and adds to the bulk.
steve garza
Well-known
"For the 21mm- do you think the B+W SLIM is in order?
Seems to qualify as a pretty wide angle lens and might benefit from what the SLIM has to offer"
I wouldn't put out the extra $$...You're probably using the external finder for composition, so it shouldn't make any difference for viewing. Unless, you like the a slim looks....
Seems to qualify as a pretty wide angle lens and might benefit from what the SLIM has to offer"
I wouldn't put out the extra $$...You're probably using the external finder for composition, so it shouldn't make any difference for viewing. Unless, you like the a slim looks....
I understand the purpose of the slim filter is to avoid vignetting that might be caused by a thicker/deeper filter mount, so it's not a matter of looks. It's not a matter of viewing either, as we're speaking of a RF camera here!steve garza said: